And stage V for rail is effectively the same as IIIBNon-road engines do not have the same standards. Stage V will come into force for these later this year. There is no stage IV for rail vehicles and the current standard is IIIb.
And stage V for rail is effectively the same as IIIBNon-road engines do not have the same standards. Stage V will come into force for these later this year. There is no stage IV for rail vehicles and the current standard is IIIb.
You'll be waiting a very long time as TfL won't. Local emissions from Rail in London will fall 80% from the the start of 2016 to the end of 2020, no other sector has or will deliver that scale of reduction.
If you want to see big reductions in Urban emissions:
1. Particulates - enforce current legalisation banning wood burning in urban area this will reduce total particulates by 35-40% in large urban areas. A very big cheap and easy win.
2. NOx - The best BCR for NOx reduction is gas boiler replacement either natural when they are life expired (or accelerated through some kind of highly targeted scrapage scheme) [Gas boiler designs have emission tiers for NOx]. Expect a 25% reduction in NOx over a decade with natural replacement.
Given the impact of NOx and PMs why are black cab exempt (and remarkably bad) from the ULEZ? and have bigger impact than rail...
As others have pointed out, trains on the British network that are equipped with SCR (selective catalytic reduction) technology, or "AdBlue systems", are Classes 195, 755, 769, 800 and 802, in terms of multiple units. Do the Class 68 etc Stadler locomotives use it also...?
I always thought it strange that electrification of London's last remaining non electrified terminal, Marylebone, never seems to get mentioned.I'd enjoy TFL charging every diesel train not meeting euro 6 standards entering the ULEZ zone in London being charged £200 per engine like lorries and coaches will be in a few months time!
So thats the Virgin Voyagers 220/221s, LNER class 43s, all Chilterns fleet, GWR turbostars and remaining 43s, all EMT fleet & SWR 158/9s!
We'd soon have cleaner trains either by retrofitting scrubber exhausts or modified catalytic convertors with AdBlue usage
You'll be waiting a very long time as TfL won't. Local emissions from Rail in London will fall 80% from the the start of 2016 to the end of 2020, no other sector has or will deliver that scale of reduction.
If you want to see big reductions in Urban emissions:
1. Particulates - enforce current legalisation banning wood burning in urban area this will reduce total particulates by 35-40% in large urban areas. A very big cheap and easy win.
2. NOx - The best BCR for NOx reduction is gas boiler replacement either natural when they are life expired (or accelerated through some kind of highly targeted scrapage scheme) [Gas boiler designs have emission tiers for NOx]. Expect a 25% reduction in NOx over a decade with natural replacement.
Given the impact of NOx and PMs why are black cab exempt (and remarkably bad) from the ULEZ? and have bigger impact than rail...
All new black cabs have to be Zero Emission Capable.
New licensing requirements from 1 January 2018
Since 1 January 2018, taxis presented for licensing for the first time have needed to be ZEC. This means having CO2 emissions of no more than 50g/km and a minimum 30 mile zero emission range
First-time taxi vehicle licences are no longer granted to diesel taxis. ZEC taxis with petrol engines need to meet the latest emissions standard (currently Euro 6)
Exactly - Hundreds of better way to spend the cash to reduce emissionsThe thread is badly titled, and the poll part fairly superfluous. AdBlue isn’t actually a “system”, it is a consumable, as explained earlier. (Eg post #33) It is also already in use on the newest engines, as we have seen.
The only question is surely therefore, “should existing Diesel engines be retrospectively modified to the latest standards?”, and the probable answer (given the figures mentioned) is that it won’t be cost effective for their limited remaining life.
All new black cabs have to be Zero Emission Capable.
New licensing requirements from 1 January 2018
Since 1 January 2018, taxis presented for licensing for the first time have needed to be ZEC. This means having CO2 emissions of no more than 50g/km and a minimum 30 mile zero emission range
First-time taxi vehicle licences are no longer granted to diesel taxis. ZEC taxis with petrol engines need to meet the latest emissions standard (currently Euro 6)
ThanksAFAIK, the current Class 68 don't use it - they were built at the tail end of the IIIa emissions era.
Are those new black cabs plug in hybrids?
AdBlue is pretty expensive and need's replacing at every service. That'd be about once a week. It would just be better to electrify lines or find alternate fuel's.What it says on the tin, Why do Diesel Trains not have AdBlue? It makes sense doesn't it? Most newer buses and even newer cars have AdBlue systems, wouldn't it be viable for the railway industry to follow suit?
AdBlue is pretty expensive and need's replacing at every service. That'd be about once a week. It would just be better to electrify lines or find alternate fuel's.
Is Ad-Ble a trademark? Are other systems ( with other names) also available?
To provide a bit more detail how far shipping is behind even filthy old sprinters, new rules come into force later this year known as IMO 2020 that will force shipping to move onto cleaner fuels such as ..... diesel! There is a fear this will cause a spike or permanent rise in diesel prices that may impact those sprinters. It would be an interesting trickle down if a move in shipping improves the economics of either conversion of EMUs to bi-modes or the introduction of alternative fuels.
Bunker oil, in some cases. It's something like the dregs left when you refine oil. It's a viscous oil that has to be heated to get it into an engine. Some ships have flex fuel engines which use diesel where regulations apply and bunker oil out at sea.What does shipping use now then?
Bunker oil, in some cases. It's something like the dregs left when you refine oil. It's a viscous oil that has to be heated to get it into an engine. Some ships have flex fuel engines which use diesel where regulations apply and bunker oil out at sea.
Sweden already has large electric ferries. Range is the issue but I understand there is work ongoing to develop hybrid systems that would run electric out of port and then on LNG. Carnival launched the world's first LNG cruise ship last year and LNG is much much better than the fuel currently used.Diesel is the future then, doubt electric ships will ever become a thing.
Shipping is outside the Paris Agreement. There has been some progress but not enough. The article in the FT today said that there is no dry dock capacity to install scrubbing technology on shipping until 2020 and there is apparently a loophole where they can dump the scrubbed suplhur into the sea. That is like fitting scrubbing to trains and letting them lob the suplhur into the river Ouse as they approach York.It's notable that shipping is only now addressing sulfur emissions, some quarter century after low sulfur fuels for road vehicles became commonplace. Much of this so-called improvement will be effected by exhaust gas scrubbing, which just diverts the pollutants into the immediate marine environment. There is no real sign of shipping tackling NOx or particulate emissions.
I agree cruise ship pollution in ports is a disgrace. Long overdue that they should all be connected to a shore supply.Shipping is outside the Paris Agreement. There has been some progress but not enough. The article in the FT today said that there is no dry dock capacity to install scrubbing technology on shipping until 2020 and there is apparently a loophole where they can dump the scrubbed suplhur into the sea. That is like fitting scrubbing to trains and letting them lob the suplhur into the river Ouse as they approach York.
Cruise ships are the one that really get me. I was in Cozumel in Mexico last year and 4 massive cruise ships turned on their engines at the same time. That is a beautiful island of 100,000 suddenly having the same pollution as a city with 4 million cars moving at the same time. Nuts and totally unnecessary.
GWR trains don't either because the CCZ is east of the Edgware Road and the 158/59 could be replaced with hybrid Flex-type trains. As for London Bridge - Uckfield, that's hardly a problem being only 1tph.Take a look at the current CC\ULEZ zone on a map. Only the GWR and SWR trains on your list (plus some Southern units) enter the zone. That's ignoring that the differences in emissions standards, of course.
If you want to get silly about it, there's the LGV LEZ which applies to the area roughly bounded by the M25...
Yes of course Paddington is outside - excuse the brain fade. All fantasy anywayGWR trains don't either because the CCZ is east of the Edgware Road and the 158/59 could be replaced with hybrid Flex-type trains. As for London Bridge - Uckfield, that's hardly a problem being only 1tph.
No, SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction, the mechanism that AdBlue enables) is solely about reducing NOx emissions. A more basic particulate filter would reduce the visible particulates. Polar bears really need the climate to stay cold, which nothing short of decarbonisation of the global economy will really help with (although particulate deposits do darken arctic ice, which contributes to melting.)Would fitting adblue mean the end to clagging exhausts on locos such as on class 37’s?
That is if such a system could be “squeezed” inside the loco.
Can’t see the move been popular with enthusiastic types that enjoy seeing a loco clearing its lungs.
Then again if it helps Johnny polar bear reach a grand old age it’s worth doing eh